I may have said this before, but this thread gives me deja vu. It completely mirrors my experience with a specific brand of high-end putters (Scotty Cameron) in the golf world. The same relentless focus on "value" or the latest sales (asking) prices, when the sales themselves aren't really arms-length transactions, but the same small group of collectors swapping them back and forth. The same unclear mythology surrounding the true number of items produced. Collectors buying the items and not using them, but storing them away so their "value" doesn't get hurt. It's uncanny really.

 

And that puts me in mind of the old (but apposite) one:

A man sold a case of tinned sardines to another man. That man sold it for more to another man. He sold it on at a profit. So did the man who bought it. That man opened one of the tins. The sardines were disgusting. He opened a second. Just as bad. And a third. Also foul. He rang the man he’d bought it from to complain. “Why did you open them? They’re for buying and selling, not eating” was the reply.

 

Gold is not really an investment imho, it is bought because it always kept some long term value, and is easily stored and converted anywhere: an old form of saving value, away from money. Of course you can speculate on its short term value, like all traded items (bonds, watches, golf clubs, pottery, you name it!). But it is speculation, and I feel this thread turned into manipulative speculation, away from watches.

 

Then why are they called 'watches' instead of 'wearers'? I thought you were supposed to look at them, which doesn't require wearing them.

 

Advertisement for my posting on vintage speedmaster prices compared to other investments. Note that *all* these watches are worn as intended!

https://omegaforums.net/threads/vintage-speedmaster-price-analysis.43676/#post-1169913

 

Is this what is meant by the term 'tool watch'?

 

This thread is a hilarious read. I shared the link with a friend in the marketing department of Omega. We both had our fun. Same friend who gifted me my TinTin and had involvement in the TinTin project.

I believe most of us reconciled back 30 pages+ ago that there are less than 2000 and likely no more than 1500 TinTin’s in the wild watch world.
This means this watch is a collectors piece. Like it or not. It is. This watch having collectibility and an increasing value is no mystery.

The entire watch market is built on speculation and resale value. If most people bought watches for $5000 and soon the value dropped to $0 then the watch market would stop existing.

I have friends who invest 5% of their savings into watches. It’s a way to spread out assets. It’s an enjoyable hobby. Spread as much joy as you can and joy may return back to you in abundance.

 

I just want to know which drug was used by the troll?
He made no sense at all...

 

I agree. Many comments in this thread are laughable. Starting with the statement that a production of less than 2,000 means « collectible ». That makes a lot of collectible watches! Thank you. I had enough.

 

Coming back into this thread after being away for a few weeks - seems like I missed all the fun!

Anyway, to answer the question above, I think you're creating a false dichotomy, since for many it's not just rocket or not - the back story is as interesting as the dial itself. I would posit that you ought to have three options:

1) I would have preferred it with the rocket
2) I like it as it is, with the back story, or
3) I would have bought it as is, even if it was intended as a "Racing" all along and had no back story.

Me, I'm a 2.5. I like the aesthetics of the dial, but the back story adds a little extra intrigue that made it more compelling to me.

Oh, and what if the rocket had been attached to the chrono sweep second hand?

 

You're right, slicing the aesthetics question up in this way is a bit of an over-simplification. Nevertheless, would it be fair to infer from your rating above that the rocket dial would have been less appealing to you, all other things, including backstory, being equal?

Interesting idea re the rocket chrono seconds hand. Something kind of like the date hand on the Mk40 might have been a cool alternative.

 

Interesting thoughts here lately, I did think about this in 2016, completing the Tintin to how I think it should have been done by Omega in the first place. Even contacted a watchmaker that did custom hands.

 

The little planet Earth on the short end of the hand is a lovely detail.

 

Tough to say. I was in the market for a Speedy, and the Tintin tie-in was what tipped me to this watch. I think it would have been less compelling with the rocket, but mainly because it would have lacked the mystique of the true story, not because of the aesthetics.

 

Now a red rocket seconds hand would have been good with me

 

Gotta love Scotty Cameron sticks...great to see a vertical stamped GSS NP2 win the Masters today

 

In response to the Rocket vs No Rocket debate. I’ve seen Raynald’s Rocket dialed TinTin and it is very tasteful and subdued enough to not appear overly like a gimmick. I thought it looked beautiful. It was exciting. My friends claim they saw several hundred dials that had the Rocket. The release was going to be 1953, 1954 Watches. 15-20% of the dials already had the Rocket. Most were destroyed. This leaves the number of TinTin’s in circulation closer to 1500 that’s how some of us arrive at the total. How many Rocket dials still exist? Omega has at least 2 in the vaults. The dial was cool. The story makes the watch cool. Not having the Rocket is not the end of the world.

I do also like the idea of a Rocket on the second hand.

 

I don’t anyone here suggested production of less than 2,000 watches makes it collectible. The small amount of tintins made is but one part of the narrative. The story behind tintin is very compelling. The fact that you don’t recognize the strange story of tintin makes it obvious you haven’t read many comments in the thread and makes me thankful you’ve “had enough.” So, thank you and buh bye.

 

I just got them and it cost me just about US$150. It’s a perfect fit indeed.

 

Something doesn't have to be scarce to be collectible. Collectible just means people want to own it. Pure and simple.